I Guess if God Commands it, Then it's Okay?

[POI]

For Debate:

1) Isn't it always cowardly to kill small defenseless children? Or, is there a circumstance(s) and/or time where killing small children/babies is/was instead deemed "correct/good/righteous"?

2) How does one know God is asking them to do this/that, verses not?

Reference:

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

[alexxcJRO]

Q: What has abortion to do with natural evils?

In a discussion on God's command to kill children you mentioned that infants were non-moral non-human like animals. Of course, there's the theory of evolution which says we are all animals, but that is really only eugenics in disguise. Morally you object to God's command in ancient Israel of killing children of war, but what are your thoughts on abortion and war, like the past 30 years of American history where many more children have died than those commanded by God. 63 million abortions took place in the US alone since 1973 and you have a moral judgment to pass on the creator of life you don't even think exists? Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. The goatherders would have scratched their heads over that, I think.

1. Sir do not project on me things that do not exist.
Concepts can be analyzed for logical consistency without believing they exit in reality.
It is well known in philosophy that non-moral agents are blameless.
God punishing moral agents together with non-moral agents is evil, malevolent, illogical per usage/meaning of those words/concepts.

2. Evolution by natural selection is a real natural phenomenon.
Modern humans have evolved from apelike ancestors into what we see today.

3. You continuous ignoring of the problem of natural evils ad nausium is hilarious indeed.
Natural evils that inflict suffering, pain and death indiscriminately/random to both moral agents and non-moral agents cannot be explained away.
So your just deflecting with trying to shift the attention to me.
Dishonest tactic dear sir.

4. Like I said.
Inflicting great suffering, pain onto small children-infants is evil, malevolent and wrong no matter who does it: Christians from the west with their bombardment of Irak, Syria, Afganistan; Israelites with their bombardament of Gaza; Islamists with their jihadic-terrorist attacks or powerful god/gods.
Here we can include the abortions where the fetus is fully formed.( Basically we have a smaller unborn infant )

Sir we are talking of powerful sentient beings not inanimate objects.
You said Jehovah alone is God almighty while Jesus is just a mighty god suggesting a lower status god.
Your only fighting with yourself. I am using your logic alone.

A little lower than the angels? Hebrews 2:9

If your not interested to actually debate I suggest to go to the preachy section of the forum.
This continuous deflecting, ignoring, switching of the attention to me, responding with meaningless things, responding with weird questions/things is tiring.

Both atheism and henotheism.
Q: What do you mean?

I'm henotheistic, like the ancient Jews and early Christians. The term atheist is a misnomer by definition. Oxford: Atheist - a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods. That's pure ignorance. Atheism means without gods whether you believe in them or not, plus anything, like money for example, can be gods. What I said when I said I believe in atheism means I believe atheism to exist. Since you like my witty and cryptic prose I thought I would say that. For fun.

Atheism is ignorance. That's rich. Coming from a guy who believes the moronic mythology of ancient goat herders.

Q: So Jesus is not going against Jehova's will?

No.

You said salvation from evil. Then you said: "Jesus came to us from Jehovah to save us from ourselves. "
So Jehovah send Jesus to sacrifice himself to save us from what Jehovah did. Still nonsensical garbage.
Please do not avoid the above.

[POI]

All I read in your response is a) false analogies and b) mental gymnastics.

To your response(s) below, in applying Occam's Razor, what is more likely:

1) God does not exist, self-deception and/or wanted killing is the result.
2) God does exist, insert -- (much explanation as needed)

** Option 1) starts and ends with the explanation given in option 1) itself. Option 2) needs quite a bit more. **

My point being countless people kill little children, because they (believe) God told them to. This would include you.

It's not a subtle point you're making, I get it, but no, I don't kill children. Let me put this in a perspective which negates your personal ideological fixation with theism. If I was a scientist I wouldn't build nuclear bombs to kill large groups of people, including children and cute puppies, just because I knew the science. I would only do it because I was insane. So, do insane people believe in God and are there insane scientists. Yes.

Since you don't believe God exists or tells anyone anything the essence of your point is why believe in a God that kills children because you know only a crazy person would do that without God actually saying so. The crux of my argument would be different, in that it would say scripturally speaking it isn't likely to ever have happened other than with ancient Israel because that was the only time there was a need for it. The destruction of children in the deluge of Noah's day was directly performed by God rather than men, and in Revelation it will either be destruction by fellow men without any command of God or again, similar to the deluge, directly by God and his angels.

I have selected option 1). You have instead opted for option 2) A) B).

Your response is apples and oranges to the reference Bible Verse(s). If you instead ordered military ground troops to go into a specific village and manually slaughter each and every individual in that village, without pity, then we may be getting somewhere. But you did not provide that analogy. So we are instead stuck with your false analogy, which does not relate to the Bible Verses in the OP.

If I "heard" or "received" such an order, I would ignore it. Why? I do not think any such claimed God would ever order the killing of little children.

That isn't good enough. If you were insane and you heard a voice commanding such a thing, a) it wouldn't matter whether it was "God's" voice or "Elvis's" voice. b) Your uninformed assumption on any such claimed God is erroneous based upon the very scripture you provided in the OP. The argument that it was only a vision isn't sound because 1) visions are one method of communication God uses and 2) there are also cases of literal commands to kill children. (Numbers 31:17; Deuteronomy 7:1-2; 20:16-18)

Your response further validates option 1) above (self-deception).

It would be contradictory to the claim of God's loving nature.

You've made that unsupported claim earlier, the evidence even you provided refutes it and there isn't any other source.

God isn't love then? Does love include killing little children without pity?

In essence, the ones killing little children, "in the name of God", are likely either just delusional, or lying because they actually want to kill little children. Thus, I find it interesting to read that you would absolutely kill little children in this case.

You should definitely consider more careful phrasing in such delicate cases as this. I would have killed children as commanded in ancient Israel, and in the extremely unlikely event in the present or future only if making absolutely sure there was no room for error. God would have to make it very clear to me that I wasn't crazy, sick, poisoned or tricked by mortal or demonic influence. The actual divine command itself is so unlikely so as to be virtually impossible. If I felt compelled to do that without that divine assurance I would rather take my own life.

I always find these sorts of idealistic moral conundrums very hypocritical. I'm apolitical so I would die before going to war for my country. And I have no doubt that more children were killed by American soldiers in the gulf war than all of the children ever killed by God's command, either realistically or by crazy people. This demonstrates the importance of the ancient Israelite objective. The children being killed were also being sacrificed by fire by their own parents. The fact that the Israelites didn't follow God's command to kill them all, men, women, and children, led Israel to copy this ritualistic murder of children which Jehovah thought was detestable. Likewise, in the future, if the battle of Armageddon is literal, American "Christian" soldiers who have only ever known the apostate mythology of Christianity will unwittingly war against God himself.

Again, I opt for option 1). You opt for the rest, via 2) A) B).

Please read, again, what I said in blue above.

Well, you state you would if "God" wanted you to.

I did and I meant it

Then i again assess option 1), where-as you opt for option 2) (plus)

a) If God cannot see into the future, why still call him a God?

Because the future doesn't exist and I have no use of it, because to me God isn't some Santa Claus fantasy or cosmic cash cow. Because I'm not retarded or superstitious. Any number of reasons.

But isn't the Bible 'prophetic'?

b) Seems odd God cares about bloodlines and specific geographic locations. It's almost as if this is another one of those tribal religions.

Originally the plan was to save only Israel but when they rejected the messiah the invitation was extended to the gentile. Realistically the intent is simply the preservation of mankind, not any specific group or tribe. Even if it had been that the Israelites were saved it would still only amount to the preservation of mankind, it just happens that originally in order to do that the Israelites were selected.

I think you missed my point. It's almost as if this is another one of those tribal religions. A claimed all loving God's original idea would be to save all, and not instead initially choose a bloodline and/or a region.

c) Seems odd that God's best plan was to murder little children at all. If God has any power, God could have instead made the mothers of these would-be children infertile.

There's that Santa Claus mentality. You may not believe it, but God is real, not some magic old man in the sky who can wave a wand and defy natural law. If he had wanted mechanical robots he could have manufactured them. He had the power to create the universe so that the aforementioned natural laws were to be adhered to. It works like that because that's the way he set it up. Just because he doesn't live up to nonsensical and fantastical expectations doesn't mean he is powerless or not worthy to be a god. This is why I'm always frustrated at unbelievers for adopting from the "Christians" the quixotic definition of the word god in their myopic criticism.

You see the parts in bold above? They do not jive with one another.

God creates, which goes against scientific principles. Meaning, "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Further, God also decides to bend the laws of physics in the Bible. God also intervenes in the Bible. Please try again.

a) How about, in Adam's case, judge each offspring based upon their own merits alone, and not attach all offspring's 'guilt' to the choices of the parent?

It isn't a case of guilt, it's a case of inherited sin which we all do have. It's our, for a lack of a better term, "cultural" environment.

Kool story! Can you prove "inherited sin"?

b) Why not make Hitler's mom infertile? God has no problem ordering slaughter, which means God orders human intervention to prevent what God does not want or like. This means God could use other alternative intervention(s), such as ordering influential/educational people to come into Hitler's life which ultimately reshapes Hitler's thinking.

First of all, I think Hitler was made into much more of an ominous monster than he actually was by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda. Secondly, Adam, as steward of Earth and representation of mankind, rejected God. Man is like a son who abandoned their father and their father isn't going to assist them nor interfere in their rebellion. The suffering is a product or result of that. The question Satan raised was can mankind thrive without God? So God isn't going to fudge the effort. It's their ball. God gives us the opportunity to reject the godless world which is only destroying itself, but that's it.

To the part in bold, if this is the case, then God did not need to order anyone to slaughter little children either.

So you do not adhere to any version of what the Bible says? If not, then we have nothing to discuss here.

Do you not adhere to science because it is fallible? The inspired and infallible word of God was written for people in a specific time and place, and can subsequently be used by us only as an example. Look at what happened to the Sodomites. Could be us. That sort of thing. The uninspired fallible translation of the Bible is very important to those who want to get to know God and his purpose for mankind, but it's not the same. We don't have to burn witches, abstain from eating pork etc.

Please note what you stated prior "I agree all versions of the Bible are perversions of the truth". We have nothing to discuss then. Alternatively, You and I likely agree (mostly) about what 'science' states about "gravitational theory" and/or the "germ theory of disease".

Your view, and many others ("expert" or not), differ. And yet, all of you think you have the right version.

And in science? No debate. No independent thinkers. Nothing new. Just the infallible utopia if only we could get rid of religion. You are an unbeliever and you think you have the right version, and that's as it should be, but you and I are not going to dictate or take a vote on who is "right." No one is right. It's a personal responsibility to gain knowledge. (John 17:3) It isn't wise to delegate that to some phony experts who's bottom line is the bottom line. Prophets for profit or zealous old men.

If I were a believer, I would not know if I had the right version. I have raised many topics about this, including asking folks (paraphrased) -- "How is one saved?" The answers are different because the Bible offers conflicting answers. The Bible-book is a mess. Really, nothing more than to provide complete confusion, even among the earnestly seeking -- which was me for 3 decades.

Then how do you know you are receiving God's information correctly?

Always with the "How do you know?" I don't know, which is why I would take killing children by God's command very seriously.

Again, I opt for option 1), you do not.

[Data]

First you say . . . .

1. Sir do not project on me things that do not exist.

Then you say . . .

2. Evolution by natural selection is a real natural phenomenon.
Modern humans have evolved from apelike ancestors into what we see today.

Which is silly and hypocritical. Darwinian evolution is a failed metaphysical experiment rooted in elitist racism, especially eugenics. But that's another thread in another forum.

Concepts can be analyzed for logical consistency without believing they exit in reality.

True, if the one doing the analyzing is conversant enough to make the distinction between the reality and the mythological syncretism.

It is well known in philosophy that non-moral agents are blameless.
God punishing moral agents together with non-moral agents is evil, malevolent, illogical per usage/meaning of those words/concepts.

Irrelevant, subjective. As I've indicated, it's about cultural influence and punishment has nothing to do with it. If someone is racist because of the culture they were born in they are still racist. God didn't tell Abraham to kill his firstborn, Isaac, to punish either one of them, he did it to establish whether or not Abraham's offspring would be willing to make the sacrifice God himself would make with his own firstborn only son, the Messiah. The children who God commanded to be destroyed were a threat to the purpose of that arrangement which was set in place to save mankind as a whole. The children, as a part of the culture, just as the racist is a part of their own culture, were literally a threat to mankind's existence.

Natural evils that inflict suffering, pain and death indiscriminately/random to both moral agents and non-moral agents cannot be explained away.

Hmmm. Let's test that theory. A man who carelessly sets fire to a forest isn't punishing the lifeforms destroyed in the fire.

That was easy.

Inflicting great suffering, pain onto small children-infants is evil, malevolent and wrong no matter who does it: Christians from the west with their bombardment of Irak, Syria, Afghanistan; Israelites with their bombardament of Gaza; Islamists with their jihadic-terrorist attacks or powerful god/gods.
Here we can include the abortions where the fetus is fully formed.( Basically we have a smaller unborn infant )

Strong is the ideology in this one, mmmm.

If your not interested to actually debate I suggest to go to the preachy section of the forum.

I suggest you read it again more carefully. You asked if Jesus was lower than Jehovah. A lesser God. I answered by supplying scriptural support to that effect. Why the confusion?

You said salvation from evil. Then you said: "Jesus came to us from Jehovah to save us from ourselves. "
So Jehovah send Jesus to sacrifice himself to save us from what Jehovah did. Still nonsensical garbage.

Jehovah God provides salvation from the evil created as a result specifically to Adam's sin and its subsequent results. Adam was warned not to do something but he did it anyway resulting in death, Jehovah promises to take death away. Sin equals death. Upon our death we are acquitted from our sins. (Romans 6:8) because Jesus paid the ransom sacrifice. The "evil" is sin, which Adam, our forefather, handed down to us. We are a product of that just as racism as mentioned above.

[Data]

All I read in your response is a) false analogies and b) mental gymnastics.

Your argument in this post is either a failed attempt at logic or an avoidance of everything I said. A tactic you seem to employ often. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and make the assumption that you are learning while you do this.

1) God does not exist, self-deception and/or wanted killing is the result.
2) God does exist, insert -- (much explanation as needed)

You can no more establish that God doesn't exist than I can that he does. It's a pointless exchange. Better to concentrate on what the text says than speculate. In the first case 1) I agree with the motivation behind the killing but think you yourself are motivated by ideology to exaggerate the relevance of killings commanded by God. All you are really saying, that can be verified, is that killing is done in the name of God. My response is to agree. My solution is education. Atheists don't want that solution because then they wouldn't have the exaggerated ideological position - the point to make. So, my opinion is that that kind of thinking perpetuates continuance. What is your suggestion?

Your response is apples and oranges to the reference Bible Verse(s). If you instead ordered military ground troops to go into a specific village and manually slaughter each and every individual in that village, without pity, then we may be getting somewhere. But you did not provide that analogy. So we are instead stuck with your false analogy, which does not relate to the Bible Verses in the OP.

What you are doing is taking a snip of the Bible without knowing much, if anything, about it. God kills children. That's about it. Tell me the context. Let's see what, if anything, you can do with that aside from the obvious point you are running into the ground. As I've said, I haven't responded to the verses specifically, only the exaggerated ideology. Let's examine the context.

God isn't love then? Does love include killing little children without pity?

God loves mankind and wants them to live forever in peace in paradise earth. Anyone that gets in the way suffers destruction. In the past, in the future. Men, women and children. The old, the sick, the crippled, the blind, the rich, the poor, the powerful and the meek. That is love for the righteous, and hatred for the wicked. It's not complicated. They can't coexist.

But isn't the Bible 'prophetic'?

Prophecy means to tell. Yes, the Bible is prophetic. God tells what happened, which influences what is happening, and it tells what will happen. The logical conclusion, and Jehovah's purpose for mankind.

I think you missed my point. It's almost as if this is another one of those tribal religions. A claimed all loving God's original idea would be to save all, and not instead initially choose a bloodline and/or a region.

You miss the point of the Bible. Probably haven't read or don't understand the post I made on the meaning of the Bible. A loving God can't love those who would destroy his creation. The heavens and earth and mankind. Adam's sin, which certain people perpetuate, is self-destructive.

You see the parts in bold above? They do not jive with one another.

But they do. What do you base your conclusion on? A mythological perspective of mythology in which God is a magic man in the sky that can do anything. It's childish and silly. And, more importantly, it isn't scriptural. It's your reaction to religious superstition and ignorance. Take that to the next step, knowledge, and provide a more informed debate.

God creates, which goes against scientific principles. Meaning, "matter can neither be created nor destroyed".

I'm not really interested in science. to me, science is the weatherman.

Further, God also decides to bend the laws of physics in the Bible.

Explain, please?

God also intervenes in the Bible.

So?

Can you prove "inherited sin"?

Can you prove what you had for lunch?

To the part in bold, if this is the case, then God did not need to order anyone to slaughter little children either.

Which is true? That God did know, or that God knew it was pointless? I use the word us in my statement, who specifically does that mean? Who does God want to preserve? Specific people or a class of people? The answer is a class, specifically mankind. By comparison, think zoo. Panda for example.

Please note what you stated prior "I agree all versions of the Bible are perversions of the truth". We have nothing to discuss then.

Okay. But honestly, it isn't the truth of the Bible that is most flawed in this discussion.

If I were a believer, I would not know if I had the right version.

There is no right version. There is no right interpretation. There is no right science. There is no right belief. Right is, first of all, subjective, and secondly speculative and conjectural. Those who think the world is black and white and they have concrete indisputable facts are as delusional as those who believe in mythology because they can't tell the difference. The believer doesn't need infallibility and can never have it. Not the translator or for that matter, the skeptic. Atheists tend to use words like truth, evidence, facts, reality, etc. as a crutch like the religious use faith as a crutch. There's nothing wrong with a crutch - but you only need it if you can't walk without it.

I have raised many topics about this, including asking folks (paraphrased) -- "How is one saved?"

The salvation from destruction is this: the bad will be destroyed so that the good may live. Salvation is an undeserved kindness. There is no way to be saved just as there is no way we were born, meaning we aren't born because of something we did or said. The unbelievers as well as the believers judge themselves. They will or will not be resurrected based upon whether or not they fit into the nondestructive group. The wheat and the chaff. There is a third group who are resurrected to judgment. They haven't been introduced to the choice and so will be resurrected to do that. Some to everlasting life and some to everlasting destruction. (Acts 24:15)

The answers are different because the Bible offers conflicting answers.

No. Because interpretations are conflicting. There is only two possible ways to interpret. Right or wrong. So, if you see confusion give me examples and I can help you decide.

The Bible-book is a mess. Really, nothing more than to provide complete confusion, even among the earnestly seeking -- which was me for 3 decades.

It isn't really. The theology is what makes it appear confusing. For example, it makes it difficult for people to understand the true meaning of the Bible because they have those silly pagan superstitions.

Again, I opt for option 1), you do not.

And your choice is apparent in your argument. Though that isn't necessarily so. You see?

[POI]

All I read in your response is a) false analogies and b) mental gymnastics.

Your argument in this post is either a failed attempt at logic or an avoidance of everything I said. A tactic you seem to employ often. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and make the assumption that you are learning while you do this.

Nah, all my points stand. See below...

1) God does not exist, self-deception and/or wanted killing is the result.
2) God does exist, insert -- (much explanation as needed)

You can no more establish that God doesn't exist than I can that he does. It's a pointless exchange. Better to concentrate on what the text says than speculate. In the first case 1) I agree with the motivation behind the killing but think you yourself are motivated by ideology to exaggerate the relevance of killings commanded by God. All you are really saying, that can be verified, is that killing is done in the name of God. My response is to agree. My solution is education. Atheists don't want that solution because then they wouldn't have the exaggerated ideological position - the point to make. So, my opinion is that that kind of thinking perpetuates continuance. What is your suggestion?

1) One of us is in self-deception. Meaning, you believe God may exist, I believe he may not. Which one of us is more likely in self-deception, (you or I)?

2) One of us would gladly kill, if told by a believed "external agency." You would, I would not.

3) In applying Occams's Razor, which answer fits better:

a) God does not exist, you are in self-deception
b) God does exist, explain explain explain (to taste)

Your response is apples and oranges to the reference Bible Verse(s). If you instead ordered military ground troops to go into a specific village and manually slaughter each and every individual in that village, without pity, then we may be getting somewhere. But you did not provide that analogy. So we are instead stuck with your false analogy, which does not relate to the Bible Verses in the OP.

What you are doing is taking a snip of the Bible without knowing much, if anything, about it. God kills children. That's about it. Tell me the context. Let's see what, if anything, you can do with that aside from the obvious point you are running into the ground. As I've said, I haven't responded to the verses specifically, only the exaggerated ideology. Let's examine the context.

Nah. What I did was to provide a relative analogy. You did not.

God isn't love then? Does love include killing little children without pity?

God loves mankind and wants them to live forever in peace in paradise earth. Anyone that gets in the way suffers destruction. In the past, in the future. Men, women and children. The old, the sick, the crippled, the blind, the rich, the poor, the powerful and the meek. That is love for the righteous, and hatred for the wicked. It's not complicated. They can't coexist.

You did not answer my question(s).

a) Is God love?
b) Is instructing to kill little children, without pity, loving?

But isn't the Bible 'prophetic'?

Prophecy means to tell. Yes, the Bible is prophetic. God tells what happened, which influences what is happening, and it tells what will happen. The logical conclusion, and Jehovah's purpose for mankind.

If "the future does not exist", how exactly did God know which little children to kill without pity? Did he just want to wipe them all out, just in case? My point being, either:

a) He cannot know the future and then would not know which children to kill, as I doubt they were all going to be an obstacle?
b) He can read the future, which begs the question -- why allow these little children to go ahead and be conceived, only to later order their execution anyways?

I think you missed my point. It's almost as if this is another one of those tribal religions. A claimed all loving God's original idea would be to save all, and not instead initially choose a bloodline and/or a region.

You miss the point of the Bible. Probably haven't read or don't understand the post I made on the meaning of the Bible. A loving God can't love those who would destroy his creation. The heavens and earth and mankind. Adam's sin, which certain people perpetuate, is self-destructive.

No, you missed my point. See the word in bold.

You see the parts in bold above? They do not jive with one another.

But they do. What do you base your conclusion on? A mythological perspective of mythology in which God is a magic man in the sky that can do anything. It's childish and silly. And, more importantly, it isn't scriptural. It's your reaction to religious superstition and ignorance. Take that to the next step, knowledge, and provide a more informed debate.

Thanks for the strawman.

(This) "He had the power to create the universe" (does not jive with this) "natural laws were to be adhered to." Why? Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. I trust we agree to this statement? If not, please demonstrate matter being created or destroyed. Please also demonstrate that a God did so. Otherwise, matter always was; which negates the need for a 'creator'.

I'm not really interested in science.

Then don't bring it up.

Further, God also decides to bend the laws of physics in the Bible.

Explain, please?

God/Jesus does/didn't perform the supernatural?

Can you prove "inherited sin"?

Can you prove what you had for lunch?

Please stop with the 'apologetics'. Is each and every claim on equal footing? Is proving what I had for lunch REALLY the same as proving 'inherited sin'?

So, can you prove/demonstrate 'inherited sin'?

To the part in bold, if this is the case, then God did not need to order anyone to slaughter little children either.

Which is true? That God did know, or that God knew it was pointless? I use the word us in my statement, who specifically does that mean? Who does God want to preserve? Specific people or a class of people? The answer is a class, specifically mankind. By comparison, think zoo. Panda for example.

Please read what you wrote --> "God gives us the opportunity to reject the godless world which is only destroying itself"

My last response basically says, then God should not have intervened. Further, if he should decide to intervene, why order the slaughter of little children without pity?

Please note what you stated prior "I agree all versions of the Bible are perversions of the truth". We have nothing to discuss then.

Okay. But honestly, it isn't the truth of the Bible that is most flawed in this discussion.

So are we done then?

If I were a believer, I would not know if I had the right version.

There is no right version. There is no right interpretation. There is no right science. There is no right belief. Right is, first of all, subjective, and secondly speculative and conjectural. Those who think the world is black and white and they have concrete indisputable facts are as delusional as those who believe in mythology because they can't tell the difference. The believer doesn't need infallibility and can never have it. Not the translator or for that matter, the skeptic. Atheists tend to use words like truth, evidence, facts, reality, etc. as a crutch like the religious use faith as a crutch. There's nothing wrong with a crutch - but you only need it if you can't walk without it.

Hmm... God does not give answers, and some get it right, and some get it wrong?

I have raised many topics about this, including asking folks (paraphrased) -- "How is one saved?"

The salvation from destruction is this: the bad will be destroyed so that the good may live. Salvation is an undeserved kindness. There is no way to be saved just as there is no way we were born, meaning we aren't born because of something we did or said. The unbelievers as well as the believers judge themselves. They will or will not be resurrected based upon whether or not they fit into the nondestructive group. The wheat and the chaff. There is a third group who are resurrected to judgment. They haven't been introduced to the choice and so will be resurrected to do that. Some to everlasting life and some to everlasting destruction. (Acts 24:15)

Hmm, you provide more confusion. Above you state 'subjective', but then offer IS answers.

The answers are different because the Bible offers conflicting answers.

No. Because interpretations are conflicting. There is only two possible ways to interpret. Right or wrong. So, if you see confusion give me examples and I can help you decide.

I'm confused because you said this above --> "There is no right version. There is no right interpretation. There is no right science. There is no right belief. Right is, first of all, subjective".

Care to redact what you said above?

[Data]

1) One of us is in self-deception. Meaning, you believe God may exist, I believe he may not. Which one of us is more likely in self-deception, (you or I)?

You. Because I know more about it.

2) One of us would gladly kill, if told by a believed "external agency." You would, I would not.

If you wouldn't kill the perverse to preserve the innocent due to some emotional and ideological fixation and I would, that's strike 2.

3) In applying Occams's Razor, which answer fits better:

I don't like it when people who don't know what Ockham's razor is use it in an argument, so could you look it up to save yourself further embarrassment?

a) God does not exist, you are in self-deception
b) God does exist, explain explain explain (to taste)

Still wanting me to figure it out for you? Only you can decide for yourself whether or not God exists. All I can do is give you the accurate information for you to do that. I would, as I've said earlier, be glad to do that.

Nah. What I did was to provide a relative analogy. You did not.

You aren't able to do that if you don't know what you are talking about. I can because I do know what I'm talking about.

You did not answer my question(s).

a) Is God love?
b) Is instructing to kill little children, without pity, loving?

a) Figuratively, yes.
b) Yes.

If "the future does not exist", how exactly did God know which little children to kill without pity? Did he just want to wipe them all out, just in case? My point being, either:

a) He cannot know the future and then would not know which children to kill, as I doubt they were all going to be an obstacle?
b) He can read the future, which begs the question -- why allow these little children to go ahead and be conceived, only to later order their execution anyways?

Specifically in the case where you provided the scriptural reference? At Ezekiel 9:5-7? Let's not jump ahead of ourselves. Remember, the contextual explanation I requested you provide? I'm sure as I read further down you include it.

No, you missed my point. See the word in bold.

The bold doesn't change anything.

Hmm... God does not give answers, and some get it right, and some get it wrong?

God explained, gave answers, what people do with them is up to them.

I'm confused because you said this above --> "There is no right version. There is no right interpretation. There is no right science. There is no right belief. Right is, first of all, subjective".

Care to redact what you said above?

Sure, I'd love to. As soon as you provide the contextual explanation of the scriptures you gave in the OP.

[POI]

1) One of us is in self-deception. Meaning, you believe God may exist, I believe he may not. Which one of us is more likely in self-deception, (you or I)?

You. Because I know more about it.

I doubt that

2) One of us would gladly kill, if told by a believed "external agency." You would, I would not.

If you wouldn't kill the perverse to preserve the innocent due to some emotional and ideological fixation and I would, that's strike 2.

Again, people who hear voices to kill are likely in self-deception.

3) In applying Occams's Razor, which answer fits better:

I don't like it when people who don't know what Ockham's razor is use it in an argument, so could you look it up to save yourself further embarrassment?

I opt to elect answers which require fewer 'entities'. You opt for much much much more. With mental gymnastics to boot.

a) God does not exist, you are in self-deception
b) God does exist, explain explain explain (to taste)

Still wanting me to figure it out for you? Only you can decide for yourself whether or not God exists. All I can do is give you the accurate information for you to do that. I would, as I've said earlier, be glad to do that.

Self-deception is the option which requires much less explanation and mental gymnastics. A matter of fact, self-deception explains it all. To believe such a God exists instead requires much more explanation and also mental gymnastics to remain in line with the concept of a "Christian God".

Nah. What I did was to provide a relative analogy. You did not.

You aren't able to do that if you don't know what you are talking about. I can because I do know what I'm talking about.

You have not, in any way, explained how I do not know what I am talking about. Hence, my analogy, in blue, stands.

You did not answer my question(s).

a) Is God love?
b) Is instructing to kill little children, without pity, loving?

a) Figuratively, yes.
b) Yes.

A) and b) conflict then, unless you apply mental gymnastics.

If "the future does not exist", how exactly did God know which little children to kill without pity? Did he just want to wipe them all out, just in case? My point being, either:

a) He cannot know the future and then would not know which children to kill, as I doubt they were all going to be an obstacle?
b) He can read the future, which begs the question -- why allow these little children to go ahead and be conceived, only to later order their execution anyways?

Specifically in the case where you provided the scriptural reference? At Ezekiel 9:5-7? Let's not jump ahead of ourselves. Remember, the contextual explanation I requested you provide? I'm sure as I read further down you include it.

Allow me to steelman your 'justification'. "These folks are going to become obstacles". Okay. When exactly did God know this? Meaning, did God know this before they were little children? My point being, these little children had not become obstacles yet. When exactly did it dawn on God that these little children were going to be obstacles?

a) the moment they became little children?
b) before that?

I'd say the answer is likely b). Which means God could have stopped their conceptions. But instead, he opted to have them slaughtered while they were petrified little children, not knowing what they were later going to do. Why? (And before you give the same response as before, please read point 4) at the very bottom.)

No, you missed my point. See the word in bold.

The bold doesn't change anything.

Then you do not understand context.

Hmm... God does not give answers, and some get it right, and some get it wrong?

God explained, gave answers, what people do with them is up to them.

You said all facts are 'subjective'. Your statement there is false. Facts are objective, but some people do not apprehend those facts.

I'm confused because you said this above --> "There is no right version. There is no right interpretation. There is no right science. There is no right belief. Right is, first of all, subjective".

Care to redact what you said above?

Sure, I'd love to. As soon as you provide the contextual explanation of the scriptures you gave in the OP.

You have, again, completely missed the intent of my response. Go back and re-read the exchange. I'm getting tired of re-explaining things.

And I noticed you skipped a few important topics:

1) Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then there is no need for a "creator", right?
2) Please demonstrate 'inherited sin'.
3) Is each and every claim on equal footing?
4) You claim God is not like Santa Claus, and yet we have claims of breaking natural law in the OT and NT. Which means God could most certainly also stop conceptions of folks who were later going to be obstacles.
5) If God allows for 'free will' then he still should not have ordered for the slaughter of little children anyway.
 

[Data]

I doubt that :D

I don't. ;D

Again, people who hear voices to kill are likely in self-deception.

Those sorts of accusations are more appropriately disputed in a court of law, though. Anyway, as I've pointed out millions more children have been murdered by atheistic supported wars and abortions for profit and convenance than God has ever commanded, so fake morality isn't a serious response to the subject.

I opt to elect answers which require fewer 'entities'. You opt for much much much more. With mental gymnastics to boot.

When I'm trying to explain it to someone who is obviously uninformed, perhaps. But then, "Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. And Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests and are equally well-supported by evidence" (Wikipedia) It means not adding any unnecessary entities. I've already answered this post thoroughly but of course, you aren't going to accept it. Rather than waste any more of my time sifting through more repetition of your typical uninformed smartass atheist nonsense and fake moral hypocrisy I'm going to explain why it's okay if God commands anything. It's because he created life, the universe and everything. It belongs to him. He doesn't need your approval.

And I noticed you skipped a few important topics:

1) If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then there is no need for a "creator", right?
2) Please demonstrate 'inherited sin'.
3) Is each and every claim on equal footing?
4) You claim God is not like Santa Claus, and yet we have claims of breaking natural law in the OT and NT. Which means God could most certainly also stop conceptions of folks who were later going to be obstacles.
5) If God allows for 'free will' then he still should not have ordered for the slaughter of little children anyway.
 

That your idea of strictly adhering to Occam's Razor?

[boatsnguitars]

I doubt that

I don't. ;D

Again, people who hear voices to kill are likely in self-deception.

Those sorts of accusations are more appropriately disputed in a court of law, though. Anyway, as I've pointed out millions more children have been murdered by atheistic supported wars and abortions for profit and convenance than God has ever commanded, so fake morality isn't a serious response to the subject.

I opt to elect answers which require fewer 'entities'. You opt for much much much more. With mental gymnastics to boot.

When I'm trying to explain it to someone who is obviously uninformed, perhaps. But then, "Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. And Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests and are equally well-supported by evidence" (Wikipedia) It means not adding any unnecessary entities. I've already answered this post thoroughly but of course, you aren't going to accept it. Rather than waste any more of my time sifting through more repetition of your typical uninformed smartass atheist nonsense and fake moral hypocrisy I'm going to explain why it's okay if God commands anything. It's because he created life, the universe and everything. It belongs to him. He doesn't need your approval.

And I noticed you skipped a few important topics:

1) If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then there is no need for a "creator", right?
2) Please demonstrate 'inherited sin'.
3) Is each and every claim on equal footing?
4) You claim God is not like Santa Claus, and yet we have claims of breaking natural law in the OT and NT. Which means God could most certainly also stop conceptions of folks who were later going to be obstacles.
5) If God allows for 'free will' then he still should not have ordered for the slaughter of little children anyway.
 

That your idea of strictly adhering to Occam's Razor?

1. Where is it written that God owns things he made, and, gets to do whatever he wants with them? In your head? (Please note that scientific studies show that Theist's concept of God is simply an extension of themselves).
2. I'd like to see you answer his questions.

[Data]

1. Where is it written that God owns things he made, and, gets to do whatever he wants with them? In your head? (Please note that scientific studies show that Theist's concept of God is simply an extension of themselves).

Exodus 19:5, Psalm 24:1; 30:12; 74:16; Job 41:11; Jeremiah 46:10; 1 Corinthians 10:26 along with about a dozen other references. Scientific study doesn't show that?

2. I'd like to see you answer his questions.

Okay.

1) If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then there is no need for a "creator", right?

Wrong.

2) Please demonstrate 'inherited sin'.

Demonstrate it?

3) Is each and every claim on equal footing?

Any claim made is on an equal footing. A claim is just a claim.

4) You claim God is not like Santa Claus, and yet we have claims of breaking natural law in the OT and NT. Which means God could most certainly also stop conceptions of folks who were later going to be obstacles.

I have no doubt that God could most certainly stop conceptions. That is scripturally supported.

5) If God allows for 'free will' then he still should not have ordered for the slaughter of little children anyway.

Free will is a non-issue, only God truly has free will.